Rodgers to the Jets Trade Discussion

[Brit Pack]

6 minutes ago, sinceAtikevike said:

OTC/Sportrac/etc display the cap numbers as such because "From a salary cap standpoint, the presumption is option years will be picked up."

I still don't get it, partly because your answer was too complex for me could you break it down more. As when I look at OTC as well is showing a dead money charge of $24m, surely that is the pure dead cap hit if he retires at the end of next year


 

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

I still don't get it, partly because your answer was too complex for me could you break it down more. As when I look at OTC as well is showing a dead money charge of $24m, surely that is the pure dead cap hit if he retires at the end of next year


 

An option needs to be exercised in order to be shown on their data. We have not exercised Rodgers option. We never will so long as we trade him. If we held him on the roster (which we won't as it's a cap impossibility) that option would get exercised. It's setup to prorate like a signing bonus. Meaning 12m per year for the remained of the deal. Therefore, add the 46m remaining of that bonus on to the 24m and you have your dead cap for 2024, 70m.

[Brit Pack]

37 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I highly doubt this is true.

This is a complex deal when it comes to Rodgers money. The Jets get a low cap hit this year and next but are left with the same large hit in 2025 that we would be this year if he's cut or retires. I'm sure the contract and the conditions of future compensation are sticking points.

The only thing "simple" about this deal is this year's compensation. If it's pick 13, your future comp will be minimal. If it's pick 43 you'll want decent odds of future compensation reaching round 1-2 status. If it's a 3rd, you're pretty much going to want a guarantee if Rodgers is on next year's team that the 2024 or 2025 Jets 1st round pick is yours. Plus there's the decision if any players will be involved.

I agree to a large part of this, especially the contract part could be the hold up.

I just find it hard to imagine if the deal is for a couple of 3rd rounders that more teams weren't begging for that action e.g. Raiders, Niners etc. 

For the Packers to let the Jets get on the plane this deal is far closer than is being made out to be, otehrwise there would have been a mad scramble to get Rodgers 'cheap'

[sinceAtikevike]

1 minute ago, Brit Pack said:

I agree to a large part of this, especially the contract part could be the hold up.

I just find it hard to imagine if the deal is for a couple of 3rd rounders that more teams weren't begging for that action e.g. Raiders, Niners etc. 

For the Packers to let the Jets get on the plane this deal is far closer than is being made out to be, otherwise there would have been a mad scramble to get Rodgers 'cheap'

I think the comp will be higher than 2 straight up 3rd rounders (partly because he is an all-time great, and partly because these front offices all know each other and want to work towards win-win rather than burning the other team down).

However, I think you found the reason more teams weren't in on Rodgers. The contract makes the money wonky. 60 million in cash for 1 year is a big price in real dollars. Add to that that you have to exercise the option to make the 60 million in cash cap bearable (which drives future dead cap charges higher and brings in to play the second option on the contract) and I think a few teams said "we can't afford to do it".

[Brit Pack]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

An option needs to be exercised in order to be shown on their data. We have not exercised Rodgers option. We never will so long as we trade him. If we held him on the roster (which we won't as it's a cap impossibility) that option would get exercised. It's setup to prorate like a signing bonus. Meaning 12m per year for the remained of the deal. Therefore, add the 46m remaining of that bonus on to the 24m and you have your dead cap for 2024, 70m.

Isn't that why in the option bonus column it does jumps from $14m to $30m per year once the option has been excercised?

My apologies I am being thick, as this is beyond me, I still don't get the line written by Spotrac which says potential out 2024, 2 YR, $101,515,000; $24,480,000 DEAD CAP

[Brit Pack]

Just now, sinceAtikevike said:

I think the comp will be higher than 2 straight up 3rd rounders (partly because he is an all-time great, and partly because these front offices all know each other and want to work towards win-win rather than burning the other team down).

However, I think you found the reason more teams weren't in on Rodgers. The contract makes the money wonky. 60 million in cash for 1 year is a big price in real dollars. Add to that that you have to exercise the option to make the 60 million in cash cap bearable (which drives future dead cap charges higher and brings in to play the second option on the contract) and I think a few teams said "we can't afford to do it".

But both Gute and Rodgers have said that contract would get reworked if he was on the team to make it more cap friendly

[Packerraymond]

6 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Isn't that why in the option bonus column it does jumps from $14m to $30m per year once the option has been excercised?

My apologies I am being thick, as this is beyond me, I still don't get the line written by Spotrac which says potential out 2024, 2 YR, $101,515,000; $24,480,000 DEAD CAP

You're just going to have to take my word for it ha. His dead cap for 2024 if cut is 70m.

[Packer_ESP]

4 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

Isn't that why in the option bonus column it does jumps from $14m to $30m per year once the option has been excercised?

My apologies I am being thick, as this is beyond me, I still don't get the line written by Spotrac which says potential out 2024, 2 YR, $101,515,000; $24,480,000 DEAD CAP

Both OverTheCap and Spotrac have always shown wrong numbers for Aaron Rodgers' contract. I think it has to do with the way it's structured, I don't think their data models handle option bonuses correctly.

Basically what is happening is that they are calculating the correct cap numbers for each year assuming the option bonus is picked (which is the reasonable scenario) but they are calculating the dead cap numbers as if it was not picked. This doesn't make any sense, the numbers should be:

• If 2023 option is picked up, 2023 cap hit is 31M and dead cap in 2024 is 70M.
• If 2023 is not picked up, 2023 cap hit is 75M and dead cap in 2024 is 24M.

[sinceAtikevike]

11 minutes ago, Brit Pack said:

But both Gute and Rodgers have said that contract would get reworked if he was on the team to make it more cap friendly

I think that applied prior to his "intention to play for the Jets", right? I can't see GB playing hardball with the trade, force retaining Rodgers, and Rodgers reworking his deal in GB's favor to sit on a cold Lambeau bench.

However, if they rework the deal as part of the Jets trade then huge possibilities open up in terms of compensation. Jets send #13 and Pack keeps #15 in a scenario where the deal is reworked so the jets don't have to eat future money from both options after Rodgers retires.

Edited March 22, 2023 by sinceAtikevike

[Brit Pack]

14 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Both OverTheCap and Spotrac have always shown wrong numbers for Aaron Rodgers' contract. I think it has to do with the way it's structured, I don't think their data models handle option bonuses correctly.

Basically what is happening is that they are calculating the correct cap numbers for each year assuming the option bonus is picked (which is the reasonable scenario) but they are calculating the dead cap numbers as if it was not picked. This doesn't make any sense, the numbers should be:

• If 2023 option is picked up, 2023 cap hit is 31M and dead cap in 2024 is 70M.
• If 2023 is not picked up, 2023 cap hit is 75M and dead cap in 2024 is 24M.

Thanks. That makes sense to me

[fattlipp]

If we exercise his option in Sep, what’s his salary look like for team trading for him mid season and how would that affect us salary wise in 24. Maybe his value would be better at that point when say Tua get concussed and the Phins are 5-1.

[Packer_ESP]

3 minutes ago, fattlipp said:

If we exercise his option in Sep, what’s his salary look like for team trading for him mid season and how would that affect us salary wise in 24. Maybe his value would be better at that point when say Tua get concussed and the Phins are 5-1.

He would be practically free for the new team (1.2M cap hit) and no dead cap for next year if they decide to cut him. We, on the other hand, would have 70M dead cap that accelerates to the current year and we don't have that much space so that's something that just can't happen.

[Brit Pack]

I still can't get away from initial feeling that this deal has already been worked out. Before allowing the Jets to get on a plane a large part of that already had to be in place. How could it not? There was no rush for the Packers to allow the Jets to talk to Rogers!

Like buying any asset, there is a price set, which will put off many potential buyers and for a buyer to express interest in the asset they must be willing to pay in neighbourhood of the set price. The negotiation is typically small, the seller will over value the asset by a little and the buyer will try to push down the price a little but it's all in the same ballpark. 

This is not like buying a company where there is a lot of hidden numbers in the accounts and you have to do great amount of due diligence. The contract is there, the player is there, the price must be there as well. The space for variables is small from the initial price set by the seller and to what is being offered by the buyer.

My other take on this is Rodgers is the hold up. Murphy when he spoke first was very candid and relaxed (and was again yesterday) and Rodgers only comes on McAfee when he is defending his ego. He was getting bashed in the media that he is the hold up. Previously when he has come on McAfee to dispel a myth about himself, the media myth is normally accurate e.g. vax, highest paid contract, broken finger, on all of these he has openly lied on the show. 

I think the Jets won't do the deal till Rogers commits to a length of playing, they don't want to be doing this yearly charade and they want Rodgers to alter his contract so they are not left with a heavy cap hit. Those factors are the only things that make sense why the deal has not been done, nothing to do with the Packers and compensation, that should and would have been an easy an already worked out conversation.

[Smidgeon]

Observation from reading about these negotiations around the internet: nobody is neutral, not even fans of other teams. 

I firmly believe if this was a negotiation between say the Cardinals and the Titans in the exact same situation (generational but aged QB talent being traded), the takes would support the framework of starting with the Stafford trade and working backwards (who takes the money hit, how does that affect compensation, how much less is the offer because of age offset by better injury history and skill, etc).

Instead the takes are the Jets should offer nothing, the Packers should take it, and here's how the Jets can "win" the trade (Florio had yet another one today on top of Eison, Peter King, Florio previously, unnamed GMs, etc). 

Besides Brandt (whose articles are dismissed as being biased since he used to work for the Packers), I have yet to see a single pro-Packers article about their leverage in any of the media. 

And despite some claims in these articles,  the Jets are soundly winning the PR battle (and it's getting more one-sided as this drags on). It's even affecting Packers fans--our forum expectations continue to fall as time passes. I just hope the front office are as astute negotiators with Rodgers as they were with Davante. 

Paralleling Rodgers comments a few years back about how teams always come to play ("we're the ***king Green Bay Packers"), it appears you're either a Packers homer or you want to see the most lopsided trade in history to stick it to them.

[Brit Pack]

1 minute ago, Smidgeon said:

Observation from reading about these negotiations around the internet: nobody is neutral, not even fans of other teams. 

I firmly believe if this was a negotiation between say the Cardinals and the Titans in the exact same situation (generational but aged QB talent being traded), the takes would support the framework of starting with the Stafford trade and working backwards (who takes the money hit, how does that affect compensation, how much less is the offer because of age offset by better injury history and skill, etc).

Instead the takes are the Jets should offer nothing, the Packers should take it, and here's how the Jets can "win" the trade (Florio had yet another one today on top of Eison, Peter King, Florio previously, unnamed GMs, etc). 

Besides Brandt (whose articles are dismissed as being biased since he used to work for the Packers), I have yet to see a single pro-Packers article about their leverage in any of the media. 

And despite some claims in these articles,  the Jets are soundly winning the PR battle (and it's getting more one-sided as this drags on). It's even affecting Packers fans--our forum expectations continue to fall as time passes. I just hope the front office are as astute negotiators with Rodgers as they were with Davante. 

Paralleling Rodgers comments a few years back about how teams always come to play ("we're the ***king Green Bay Packers"), it appears you're either a Packers homer or you want to see the most lopsided trade in history to stick it to them.

If he was that cheap i.e no team to offer anything in terms of draft picks,  why are there not a host of teams interested e.g. Texans, Falcons, Niners, Raiders, Colts, Patriots????